﻿
------ Original Message ------
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
To: "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 9/04/2012 12:41:51 a.m.
Subject: Re: Some proxy needs
>In message <3dfc2c17927267e41710084836183f71.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>, "Nicol
>as Mailhot" writes:
>
>
>>
>>1. discoverability, to handle network guests (right now taken care of wpad+pac
>>though a lot of clients do not handle those, [...]
>>
>
>
>I would have thought this was a job for DHCP ?
>
DHCP has some issues with this, it's not standardised, and option 252
vs DNS lookups for WPAD... it's a bit of a mess.
and has no capability for communicating policy, or requirements for
enforcement.
>>
>>3. a way to signal the web client a request is being processed (there is no
>>way a multi-GB iso is going to pass through the anti-malware system
>>instantaneously, and users will press retry if the download bar does not move
>>after a few seconds)
>>
>
>
>That sounds like serious scope-creep to me.
>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-decroy-http-progress-04
We actually deployed a similar (evolved version) to this in WinGate 7.
If you install the AV plugin (free trials available for both), download
a big file and throw it a progress header. We patched Chromium source
to get the client working. It actually works really well. Certainly
stops human timeouts.
We didn't test it via a bunch of other proxies though.
I've an outstanding task to write up the modified protocol (contrary to
that I-D it uses 103, name=value pairs, and only sends deltas).
Adrien